BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards harassment, Rs.10,000/- towards Transportation and conveyance, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income /business loss, loss of time since the complainant is an advocate by profession Rs.6,300/- plus Rs.1,000/- cost of set totaling a sum of Rs.92,300/- and such other order/direction deemed fit including return of handset and an order as to costs on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2.  The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

On 05.06.2014 complainant purchased one Micromax mobile phone A-69 model with IMEI No.911334650786297 from OP-1 dealer vide invoice No.7017 by paying a sum of Rs.6,300/-.  The said mobile set is covered by warranty and OP has issued the warranty card. Ever since from the date of purchase the set was not working and battery was not at all charging. Immediately, the complainant contacted OP-1 who in turn also found problem in charging and came to the opinion that the problem is of manufacturing defect and assured the complainant that the matter will be taken up with company sales officer.  But, OP-1 has not done anything in this regard to sort out problem and complainant waited for some days hoping that OP-1 would sort out the problem.  After repeated approach OP-1 informed the complainant to approach the Company directly.   Accordingly, the complainant contacted OP-2 and handed over mobile set to OP-2 on 21.06.2014.  After testing the set OP-2 informed the complainant that the charger is defective and asked the complainant to purchase new charger at an estimated cost of Rs.450/-.  Even after the purchase of new charger, battery was not charging.  OP-2 once again tested the set and informed that charger socket is having problem and advised to pay Rs.650/- and asked the complainant to collect the set on 22.06.2014.  On 22.06.2014 OP-2 informed the complainant that charging socket is broken and gave a fresh estimate of Rs.1,000/- and the persons working at OP-2 refused to show the mobile set for the reasons best known to them.  For every two hours of inspection of set by OP-2 keep on providing new estimate with new problem every time.  In order to trace the trouble in the set OP-2 has experimented new set and tampered the set completely and not shown the set to the complainant till date.  OP-2 started the cost from Rs.450/- and increased to Rs.650/-, Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/-, Rs.1,800/- and went up to Rs.4,000/-.  When complainant demanded for return of the hand set, the authorities working at OP-2 refused to return the same and abused the complainant even tried to assault him.  Immediately on 23.06.2014 complainant lodged a police complaint.  After intervention by police authorities, OP-2 agreed to get the set repaired and received Rs.1,000/- from the complainant.  After issue of job card OP-2 informed the complainant that the cost of repair would be Rs.4,000/- to 4,500/-. OP-2 and their technicians have experimented on new mobile set without knowing the exact problem and tampered completely.  In order to escape from charges of tampering, they started alleging that the complainant has physically damaged.  OP-2 neither returned the set nor repair the same.  Hence, the complainant made a written complaint to customer care of OP-2 number of times.  But no action was taken.  Legal notice was sent through advocate on 15.09.2014 and the protest letter on 07.07.2014.  Again the complainant approached OP-1 and pressed for sorting out the issues. OP-1 has taken original job card by acknowledging for having received the original job card and assured to get the new mobile set.  Till today no progress is made.  On 27.04.2015, the complainant sent a letter through speed post informing OPs that he will approach court of law for remedies.  Inspite of repeated SMS, OPs are avoiding to attend the phone calls. Employees of OP-1 started blaming the OP-2, ultimately made the complainant to suffer. Inspite of repeated request and legal notice OPs have neither repaired nor returned the hand set.   Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OPs for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP 1 & 2.  Inspite of service of notice OPs remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OPs are placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. So as to prove his case, Mr.K.Sridhara, who being the complainant filed his affidavit evidence in support of complaint reiterating the complaint averments and produced documents.

5. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant.  So under the circumstances, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant.

6.  Let us have a cursory glance at the documents produced by the complainant.  Document No.1 is original invoice issued by OP-1 dated 05.06.2014 to the complainant for having sold Micromax A-69 model bearing IMEI No. 911334650786297 and for having received Rs.6,300/- from the complainant. Document No.2 is original warranty card issued by OP-2 Company as per the warranty condition No.2, warranty period is 12 months from the date of original purchase.  Document No.3 is copy of the acknowledgement of the police complaint dated 23.06.2014. Document No.4 is copy of the police complaint issued by complainant to PSI, Rajajinagar Police Station. Document No.5 is copy of the Job card dated 22.06.2014 issued in the name of the complainant for the issues of power does not switch on, not charging, charging socket broken etc. The said copy of job card of OP-1 intimated stating that original job sheet received by OP-1 on 31.01.2015 and Rs.1,000/- paid.  Document No.6 is copy of e-mail sent by complainant to OP.  Document No.7 is letter sent to customer service wing through mail on 07.07.2014 along with RPAD receipt.  Document No.8 is copy of the legal notice dated 15.09.2014 issued by complainant through his advocate calling upon OPs 1 & 2 to compensate for deficiency in service apart from handing over the new hand set within seven days, failing which complainant will be constrained to take legal action before the appropriate legal Forum. Document No.9 is a letter of the complainant dated 27.04.2015 issued to OP-1 stating if he did not get reply within seven days legal action will be initiated. Document No.10. is served acknowledgment card two numbers and postal receipts. 

7. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is made crystal clear that on 05.06.2014 complainant purchased Micromax mobile hand set bearing IMEI            No.911334650786297 from OP-1 dealer by paying a sum of Rs.6,300/- as per Document No.1 invoice.  The said mobile hand set covered by warranty of one year. Since, from the day of purchase the set was neither working nor not getting charged.  To establish the defect complainant has produced the job card dated 22.06.2014 issued by OP-1 as per Document No.5.  OPs charged exorbitant amount of Rs.450/- Rs.650/- Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,500/- and Rs.1,800/- at last Rs.4,000/- towards repairs.  Though OP-1 has received Rs.1,000/- towards repair charges as per the Job card, has failed to repair the set till date.  At last OPs have failed to return the handset to the complainant even after lodging of police complaint dated 23.06.2014 as per Document No.3 & 4.  Hence, complainant wrote a letter dated 27.04.2015 and also got issued legal notice dated 15.09.2014 calling upon OPs to pay compensation apart from handing over the new handset within seven days failing which complainant will be constrained to take legal action.  The said notice served on OPs on 16.09.2014, but OPs have failed to respond.  Hence this complaint.  Since the handset is within the warranty period the complainant is entitled for either replacement or repair.  OP 1& 2 being a dealer and manufacturer have failed to replace repair the hand set or to refund the amount inspite of repeated correspondence and legal notice.  This act of OPs in not repairing or replacing the handset within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Having spent Rs.7,300/- complainant could not make use of the handset till date.   Further, OPs went on charging exorbitant amount towards repair charges.  For more than a year now OP neither repaired, replaced nor return the handset to the complainant.  This act of OP must have caused mental agony to the complainant.  We are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency in service against OP. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled for replacement of brand new Micromax mobile model A-69 and for compensation of Rs.10,000/- failing which to pay Rs.6,300/- being the cost of the mobile hand set and Rs.1,000/- paid towards repair charges along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation cost.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

                                  O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part. 

2. OPs 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the brand new Micromax Model A-69 mobile hand set along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- failing which in alternative to refund Rs.6,300/- being the cost of said handset, Rs.1,000/- paid towards repair charges along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.

3. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Forum by us on this the 6^th day of January 2016)

 MEMBER                         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

NRS* 

CC.No.1294/2015

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 30.09.2015-Sri.K.Sridhara

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs – Absent

List of documents produced by the OPs – Nil

MEMBER                          MEMBER                       PRESIDENT